Laboratory procedures to determine the breakaway behavior of luminaire supports in minisized vehicle collisions. Volume 3. FOIL operation and safety plan.

Federal Highway Administration, Safety Design Division, McLean, Va.

Changes in motor vehicle buyer attitudes and market behavior. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Alcohol experiments on driving-related behavior: a review of the 1974 - alcohol countermeasures literature. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Driver and Pedestrian Programs, Washington, D.C.

On-the-road driving behavior and breath alcohol concentration. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Consumer behavior towards fuel efficient vehicles. Volume I: executive summary. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Technology Assessment Division, Washington, D.C.

Consumer behavior towards fuel efficient vehicles. Volume II: consumer sentiments towards fuel efficient vehicles. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Technology Assessment Division, Washington, D.C.

Consumer behavior towards fuel efficient vehicles. Volume III: forecasts of the composition of household motor vehicle holdings. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Technology Assessment Division, Washington, D.C.

Measurement of pedestrian behavior: a handbook for identifying the behaviors to measure and the measurement systems for use in countermeasure evaluation. Interim report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

The behavior modification school follow-up study. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Aircraft accident report : collision with trees and crash short of the runway, Corporate Airlines flight 5966, BAE systems BAE-J3201, N875JX, Kirksville, Missouri, October 19, 2004 /

On October 19, 2004, about 1937 central daylight time, Corporate Airlines (doing business as American Connection) flight 5966, a BAE Systems BAE-J3201, N875JX, struck trees on final approach and crashed short of runway 36 at the Kirksville Regional Airport (IRK), Kirksville, Missouri. The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a scheduled passenger flight from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, in St. Louis, Missouri, to IRK. The captain, first officer, and 11 of the 13 passengers were fatally injured, and 2 passengers received serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed by impact and a post impact fire. Night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) prevailed at the time of the accident, and the flight operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the pilots' failure to follow established procedures and properly conduct a nonprecision instrument approach at night in IMC, including their descent below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) before required visual cues were available (which continued unmoderated until the airplane struck the trees) and their failure to adhere to the established division of duties between the flying and nonflying (monitoring) pilot. Contributing to the accident was the pilots' failure to make standard callouts and the current Federal Aviation Regulations that allow pilots to descend below the MDA into a region in which safe obstacle clearance is not assured based upon seeing only the airport approach lights. The pilots' unprofessional behavior during the flight and their fatigue likely contributed to their degraded performance. The safety issues in this report focus on operational and human factors issues, including the pilots' professionalism and sterile cockpit procedures, nonprecision instrument approach procedures, flight and duty time regulations, fatigue, and flight data/image recorder requirements.

A simulator study of the combined effects of alcohol and marihuana on driving behavior. Phase II. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

A simulator study of the combined effects of alcohol and marihuana on driving behavior. Phase I. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

The role of personal values in corporate social entrepreneurship

The literature acknowledges a distinction between immoral, amoral and moral management (Carroll, 1987; Crane 2000). This paper makes a case for the manager as a moral agent, even though the paper begins by highlighting a body of evidence which suggests that individual moral agency is sacrificed at work and is compromised in deference to other pressures. This leads to a discussion of the notion of managerial discretion and an examination of a separate, contrary body of literature which indicates that some managers in corporations may use their discretion to behave in a socially entrepreneurial manner. The underlying assumption of the study is that CSR isn’t solely driven by economics and that it may also be championed as a result of a personal morality, inspired by an individual’s own socially oriented personal values. A conceptual framework is put forward and it is suggested that individuals may be categorized as Active or Frustrated Corporate Social Entrepreneurs; Conformists or Apathetics: distinguished by individualistic or collectivist personal values. In a discussion of the nature of values, this paper highlights how values may act as drivers of our behavior and pays particular attention to the values of the entrepreneur, thereby linking the existing debate on moral agency with the field of corporate social responsibility.

Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship

The literature acknowledges a distinction between immoral, amoral and moral management. This paper makes a case for the employee (at any level) as a moral agent, even though the paper begins by highlighting a body of evidence which suggests that individual moral agency is sacrificed at work and is compromised in deference to other pressures. This leads to a discussion about the notion of discretion and an examination of a separate, contrary body of literature which indicates that some individuals in corporations may use their discretion to behave in a socially entrepreneurial manner. My underlying assumption is that CSR isn’t solely driven by economics and that it may also be championed as a result of a personal morality, inspired by employees’ own socially oriented personal values. A conceptual framework is put forward and it is suggested that individuals may be categorized as Active or Frustrated Corporate Social Entrepreneurs; Conformists or Apathetics, distinguished by their individualistic or collectivist personal values. In a discussion of the nature of values, this paper highlights how values may act as drivers of our behavior and pays particular attention to the values of the entrepreneur, thereby linking the existing debate on moral agency with the field of corporate social responsibility.

State subsidy and moral hazard in corporate financing

This paper investigates the impact of state subsidy on the behavior of the entrepreneur under asymmetric information. Several authors formulated concerns about state intervention as it can aggravate moral hazard in corporate financing. In the seminal paper of Holmström and Tirole (1997) a two-player moral hazard model is presented with an entrepreneur initiating a risky scalable project and a private investor (e.g. bank or venture capitalist) providing outside financing. The novelty of our research is that this basic moral hazard model is extended to the case of positive externalities and to three players by introducing the state subsidizing the project. It is shown that in the optimum, state subsidy does not harm, but improves the incentives of the entrepreneur to make efforts for the success of the project; hence in effect state intervention reduces moral hazard. Consequently, state subsidy increases social welfare which is defined as the sum of private and public net benefits. Also, the exact form of the state subsidy (ex-ante/ex-post, conditional/unconditional, refundable/nonrefundable) is irrelevant in respect of the optimal size and the total welfare effect of the project. Moreover, in case of nonrefundable subsidies state does not crowd out private investors; but on the contrary, by providing additional capital it boosts private financing. In case of refundable subsidies some crowding effects may occur depending on the subsidy form and the parameters.